Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 2, 2014 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 24

Study Guide Chagigah 24


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜

Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony is not needed to teach the basic halakha that a vessel combines its ingredients, which is Torah law; it is necessary only for the remainders of the meal-offering, the part of a meal-offering left over after a fistful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar, which is eaten by a priest. In such a case the halakha of combining applies only by rabbinic law, for by Torah law only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified does the vessel combine it with regard to impurity, even if its parts are not touching each other. But in the case of something that does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine it. The remainder of a meal-offering no longer requires a vessel, since it is given to a priest after the fistful is sacrificed, so the flour in a vessel would not be considered combined according to Torah law.

讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜讙讝专讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜

And the Sages came and decreed that even if something does not require a vessel, such as the leftover flour of the meal-offering, the vessel nevertheless combines it.

转讬谞讞 住诇转 拽讟讜专转 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讘专谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专讟讘诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬砖 诇讜 转讜讱 诪爪专祝 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讱 讗讬谞讜 诪爪专祝 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜转讬拽谞讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讱 诪爪专祝

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It works out well in the case of flour, which can be said to refer to the flour left over from meal-offerings, but with regard to incense and frankincense, what is there to say? In these cases a vessel is certainly required, but if the halakha of combining applies to them from the Torah, why did Rabbi Akiva include them in his list? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For example, if he piled them up on a leather board [kartavla], rather than in a containing vessel. By Torah law a vessel that has an inside combines its ingredients, but one that is flat and does not have an inside does not combine. And the Sages came and decreed that even if it does not have an inside it nevertheless combines what is placed on it.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜

The Gemara comments: And this opinion of Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚, that impurity by combining is derived from the Torah, disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. For Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in reference to our mishna: This mishna was taught based on Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony. In other words, the mishna鈥檚 teaching that a vessel combines its contents follows the statement of Rabbi Akiva, indicating that it is by rabbinic law, unlike Rabbi 岣nin, who said that it is based on a source from the Torah.

讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 驻住讜诇 讘拽讚砖 砖诇讬砖讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬 诇拽讚砖 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜专讘讬注讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

搂 It was taught in the mishna: The fourth degree of impurity, with regard to sacrificial food, is disqualified. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to the fourth degree of ritual impurity, that with regard to sacrificial food it is disqualified? It is a logical derivation, by a fortiori: If one who is lacking atonement, an impure person who is obligated to bring an offering to complete his purification process, who is permitted to eat teruma, is nevertheless disqualified with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food, as specified in the Torah, then concerning something that is impure to the third degree of ritual impurity, which is disqualified if it is teruma, is it not right that it should engender a fourth degree of ritual impurity when it touches sacrificial food? Therefore, we have learned that there is a third degree of impurity with regard to sacrificial food from the Torah, and that there is a fourth degree of impurity from a fortiori reasoning.

砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The above baraita taught that there is a third degree of impurity for sacrificial food from the Torah. The Gemara asks: From where is this derived? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Is it not so that we are not dealing in that verse with meat that touches any 鈥渋mpure thing鈥 at all, even if it touched something that is of the second degree of ritual impurity, which is also called an 鈥渋mpure thing鈥? And yet the Merciful One states with regard to that meat, which having touched a second-degree impurity is now impure to the third degree: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 meaning that it has been rendered unfit due to impurity. And as for the baraita鈥檚 statement that the fourth level of impurity is derived by an a fortiori inference 鈥 it is as we said just above, the a fortiori inference put forth by Rabbi Yosei.

讜讘转专讜诪讛 讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And with regard to teruma, if one of one鈥檚 hands became impure with impurity by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both. Rav Sheizevi said: When they said that with regard to sacrificial food a hand that is rendered impure renders the other hand impure as well, they taught this only for a situation when the pure hand is in contact with the sacrificial food when the impure hand touches it. But if the pure hand is not in contact with the sacrificial food, no, the pure hand is not rendered impure by touching the impure hand. According to Rav Sheizevi, the Sages enacted the decree that one hand renders the other impure because they were concerned that the impure hand may have touched the sacrificial food directly without being noticed. Therefore, the decree applies only when the pure hand is touching the sacrificial food.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讬讚 谞讙讜讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讟诪讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Sheizevi from the following teaching: Even a dry hand that is impure renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure, to the extent that the second hand will now render impure any food that it touches. This is true with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The second hand is not rendered impure to such a severe extent. It can merely disqualify sacrificial food that it touches, by rendering it impure to the fourth degree, but not render it impure with third-degree impurity.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讜转讬讛 讚谞讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讗 讚谞讙讜讘讛

Granted, if you say that the second hand becomes impure even when it is not in contact with the sacrificial food, this would explain the noteworthiness of a dry hand rendering its counterpart impure. It teaches that even though normally a dry hand would not render another hand impure, the Sages nevertheless declared it impure with regard to sacrificial food. But if you say that when the second hand is in contact with sacrificial food, yes, the decree that the second hand becomes impure applies, lest the impure hand touch the sacrificial food directly, but when it is not in contact, no, the decree does not apply, then what is the noteworthiness of stating that it applies in the case of a dry hand?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讬讚讜

It was also stated that amora鈥檌m disputed a similar issue: Reish Lakish said: They taught that one hand renders the other impure only if the second hand is his own hand,

讗讘诇 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讬讚讜 讜讗讞讚 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

but an impure hand does not render impure the hand of another. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: An impure hand renders another hand impure whether it is his own hand or the hand of another, provided the second hand is touched by the same hand that came into contact with the impurity. Moreover, the impure hand affects the food it touches only to disqualify it, but not to render it impure.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 砖讛讬讚 诪讟诪讗讛 讞讘讬专转讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion. From where did he learn this? From the fact that it teaches in a latter clause in the mishna: For one renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. Why do I need this phrase as well? It was already taught in the first clause that one hand renders the other hand impure with regard to sacrificial food. Rather, must one not conclude from this added phrase that it comes to include the rendering impure of the hand of another as well as his own other hand?

讜讗祝 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讞讚 讬讚讜 讜讗讞讚 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

The Gemara observes: And Reish Lakish, too, retracted his own opinion in favor of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion. For Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Ami said that Reish Lakish said: The decree that one hand renders another impure applies whether it is his own hand or the hand of another, provided the second hand is touched by the same hand that came into contact with the impurity. Moreover, the impure hand affects the food it touches only to disqualify render it, but not to render it impure.

讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讟诪讗 讬讚讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 砖谞讬讜转 讜讬讚 诪讟诪讗 讞讘讬专转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讬诐 砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖谞讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara comments: And this opinion, that an impure hand affects the sacrificial food only to disqualify it but not to render it impure, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Yadayim 3:2): Anything that disqualifies teruma by contact with it, i.e., anything that is impure at least to the second degree, renders the hands impure to the second degree. And furthermore, a hand that is impure to the second degree renders its counterpart, the other hand, impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. But the Rabbis say: Hands themselves are impure to the second degree, and that which is impure to the second degree cannot impart second-degree impurity to something else with regard to non-sacred food.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讗 砖诇讬砖讬 注讘讬讚

From the Rabbis鈥 response to Rabbi Yehoshua it is clear that the latter鈥檚 opinion is that the second hand is indeed rendered impure to the second degree, imparting third-degree impurity to sacrificial food that it touches. Moreover: What, is it not correct to infer from the Rabbis鈥 words that it is impurity to the second degree that the first hand does not impart to for the second hand by touching it, but impurity to the third degree it does impart to the second hand? The second hand would thus only disqualify the sacrificial food that it touches by imparting to it a fourth-degree impurity. Therefore, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehoshua are arguing about this very point: Does the second hand only disqualify sacrificial food by imparting to it fourth-degree impurity, or does it render the food impure with third-degree impurity?

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬 注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the Rabbis meant that the first hand does not impart impurity to the second hand to either the second or the third degree, for in their opinion one impure hand does not defile the other hand at all, in contradiction to the mishna, whereas the opinion expressed in the mishna would be following Rabbi Yehoshua.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬讚 谞讙讜讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讟诪讗 讘拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

Rather, the issue of which degree of impurity is imparted to the second hand is like the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier: Even a dry hand that is impure renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure to the extent that the second hand will now render impure food that it touches. This is true with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The second hand is not rendered impure to such a severe extent. It can merely disqualify sacrificial food that it touches, by making it impure to the fourth degree, but not render it impure to the third degree.

讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞讙讜讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讜讻讬 讬砖 谞讙讜讘讛 诇拽讚砖 讜讛诇讗 讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专转谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never been wetted and are thus not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands in the case of teruma, but not in the case of sacrificial food. It is taught in a baraita that there is a difficulty with this statement of the mishna: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus said: Now, is there such a possibility as dry food, i.e., food that is not susceptible to impurity, with regard to sacrificial food? Is it not so that the reverence accorded to sacrificial food itself renders it fit to contract impurity even if it has never been in contact with liquid at all? All sacrificial food is thus automatically susceptible to impurity, and whether it is dry, i.e., it has never been wetted, or not is irrelevant.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讗讜 砖转讞讘 讛讜讗 诇注爪诪讜 讘讻讜砖 讜讘讻专讻专 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讗讻讜诇 爪谞讜谉 讜讘爪诇 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 注诪讛谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this. And the case is not one of dry sacrificial food, as was first assumed. Rather, the mishna is dealing with a case in which, for example, his friend inserted sacrificial food or teruma into his mouth, or, alternatively, a case in which he inserted it into his own mouth by means of a spindle or whorl, which are wooden vessels without receptacles that cannot contract impurity. In either event the food arrives in his mouth without being rendered impure by his impure hands. And then, while the sacrificial food or teruma is still in his mouth, he wishes to put into his mouth and eat a non-sacred radish or onion along with them.

诇拽讚砖 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Non-sacred food is not rendered impure by being touched with impure hands, so it should not be problematic to put a radish or onion into one鈥檚 mouth with his hands. However, regarding sacrificial food the Sages enacted a decree against doing so, lest the person inadvertently touch the sacrificial food in his mouth with his impure hand. This decree, the mishna teaches, applies only to sacrificial food, but in a case in which he had teruma in his mouth the Sages did not enact a decree against it.

讛讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讜 讗住讬专讬 讗爪专讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: An acute mourner and one who is lacking atonement require immersion in order to eat sacrificial food, but this is not necessary for teruma. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this decree? Since until now it was prohibited for them to partake of sacrificial food and they therefore might not have guarded themselves properly from impurity, the Sages required them to undergo immersion before eating sacrificial food.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: The previous mishna listed stringencies that apply to sacrificial food but not to teruma. However, there are also stringencies that apply to teruma over sacrificial food: In Judea all people, even people who are not generally meticulous in their observance of the halakhot of ritual purity [amei ha鈥檃retz], are trusted with regard to the purity of consecrated wine and oil throughout all the days of the year. And during the period of the winepress and olive press, when grapes and olives are pressed and made into wine and oil, respectively, they are trusted even with regard to the purity of teruma, as all people, including amei ha鈥檃retz, purify their vessels for this season.

注讘专讜 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讘诇谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉

But once the periods of the winepress and olive press have passed, if amei ha鈥檃retz brought to him, i.e., to a priest who is meticulous concerning the halakhot of ritual purity [岣ver], a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from them, as amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted with regard to matters of ritual purity during the rest of the year. But the giver may leave it over for the following winepress season, in the following year, at which point the 岣ver priest may accept it from him, although it was prohibited for him to accept the same barrel beforehand. And if the giver said to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarterlog of sacrificial wine or oil, he is trusted with regard to the entire contents of the barrel. Since an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted with regard to the purity of sacrificial food, he is also believed with regard to teruma that is mingled with the sacrificial food.

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉

With regard to jugs of wine and jugs of oil

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 21 – 27 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This we will continue learning about the world of purity and impurity. We will learn how and when vessels are...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 24: When One Hand Isn’t Relevant to What the Other Hand Is Doing

4 more stringencies for kodesh over terumah, including what happens when only one hand is pure and the other hand...

Chagigah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 24

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讛讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜

Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony is not needed to teach the basic halakha that a vessel combines its ingredients, which is Torah law; it is necessary only for the remainders of the meal-offering, the part of a meal-offering left over after a fistful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar, which is eaten by a priest. In such a case the halakha of combining applies only by rabbinic law, for by Torah law only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified does the vessel combine it with regard to impurity, even if its parts are not touching each other. But in the case of something that does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine it. The remainder of a meal-offering no longer requires a vessel, since it is given to a priest after the fistful is sacrificed, so the flour in a vessel would not be considered combined according to Torah law.

讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜讙讝专讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讬 讻诇讬 诪爪专驻讜

And the Sages came and decreed that even if something does not require a vessel, such as the leftover flour of the meal-offering, the vessel nevertheless combines it.

转讬谞讞 住诇转 拽讟讜专转 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讘专谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专讟讘诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬砖 诇讜 转讜讱 诪爪专祝 讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讱 讗讬谞讜 诪爪专祝 讜讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讜转讬拽谞讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 转讜讱 诪爪专祝

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It works out well in the case of flour, which can be said to refer to the flour left over from meal-offerings, but with regard to incense and frankincense, what is there to say? In these cases a vessel is certainly required, but if the halakha of combining applies to them from the Torah, why did Rabbi Akiva include them in his list? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For example, if he piled them up on a leather board [kartavla], rather than in a containing vessel. By Torah law a vessel that has an inside combines its ingredients, but one that is flat and does not have an inside does not combine. And the Sages came and decreed that even if it does not have an inside it nevertheless combines what is placed on it.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜

The Gemara comments: And this opinion of Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚, that impurity by combining is derived from the Torah, disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. For Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in reference to our mishna: This mishna was taught based on Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 testimony. In other words, the mishna鈥檚 teaching that a vessel combines its contents follows the statement of Rabbi Akiva, indicating that it is by rabbinic law, unlike Rabbi 岣nin, who said that it is based on a source from the Torah.

讛专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬 讘拽讚砖 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专 讘转专讜诪讛 驻住讜诇 讘拽讚砖 砖诇讬砖讬 砖驻住讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 专讘讬注讬 诇拽讚砖 讜诇诪讚谞讜 砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜专讘讬注讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

搂 It was taught in the mishna: The fourth degree of impurity, with regard to sacrificial food, is disqualified. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived with regard to the fourth degree of ritual impurity, that with regard to sacrificial food it is disqualified? It is a logical derivation, by a fortiori: If one who is lacking atonement, an impure person who is obligated to bring an offering to complete his purification process, who is permitted to eat teruma, is nevertheless disqualified with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food, as specified in the Torah, then concerning something that is impure to the third degree of ritual impurity, which is disqualified if it is teruma, is it not right that it should engender a fourth degree of ritual impurity when it touches sacrificial food? Therefore, we have learned that there is a third degree of impurity with regard to sacrificial food from the Torah, and that there is a fourth degree of impurity from a fortiori reasoning.

砖诇讬砖讬 诇拽讚砖 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讙注 讘砖谞讬 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬注讬 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The above baraita taught that there is a third degree of impurity for sacrificial food from the Torah. The Gemara asks: From where is this derived? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the meat that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). Is it not so that we are not dealing in that verse with meat that touches any 鈥渋mpure thing鈥 at all, even if it touched something that is of the second degree of ritual impurity, which is also called an 鈥渋mpure thing鈥? And yet the Merciful One states with regard to that meat, which having touched a second-degree impurity is now impure to the third degree: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 meaning that it has been rendered unfit due to impurity. And as for the baraita鈥檚 statement that the fourth level of impurity is derived by an a fortiori inference 鈥 it is as we said just above, the a fortiori inference put forth by Rabbi Yosei.

讜讘转专讜诪讛 讗诐 谞讟诪讗转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And with regard to teruma, if one of one鈥檚 hands became impure with impurity by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both. Rav Sheizevi said: When they said that with regard to sacrificial food a hand that is rendered impure renders the other hand impure as well, they taught this only for a situation when the pure hand is in contact with the sacrificial food when the impure hand touches it. But if the pure hand is not in contact with the sacrificial food, no, the pure hand is not rendered impure by touching the impure hand. According to Rav Sheizevi, the Sages enacted the decree that one hand renders the other impure because they were concerned that the impure hand may have touched the sacrificial food directly without being noticed. Therefore, the decree applies only when the pure hand is touching the sacrificial food.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讬讚 谞讙讜讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讟诪讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Sheizevi from the following teaching: Even a dry hand that is impure renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure, to the extent that the second hand will now render impure any food that it touches. This is true with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The second hand is not rendered impure to such a severe extent. It can merely disqualify sacrificial food that it touches, by rendering it impure to the fourth degree, but not render it impure with third-degree impurity.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讜转讬讛 讚谞讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讗 讚谞讙讜讘讛

Granted, if you say that the second hand becomes impure even when it is not in contact with the sacrificial food, this would explain the noteworthiness of a dry hand rendering its counterpart impure. It teaches that even though normally a dry hand would not render another hand impure, the Sages nevertheless declared it impure with regard to sacrificial food. But if you say that when the second hand is in contact with sacrificial food, yes, the decree that the second hand becomes impure applies, lest the impure hand touch the sacrificial food directly, but when it is not in contact, no, the decree does not apply, then what is the noteworthiness of stating that it applies in the case of a dry hand?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讬讚讜

It was also stated that amora鈥檌m disputed a similar issue: Reish Lakish said: They taught that one hand renders the other impure only if the second hand is his own hand,

讗讘诇 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讬讚讜 讜讗讞讚 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

but an impure hand does not render impure the hand of another. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: An impure hand renders another hand impure whether it is his own hand or the hand of another, provided the second hand is touched by the same hand that came into contact with the impurity. Moreover, the impure hand affects the food it touches only to disqualify it, but not to render it impure.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 砖讛讬讚 诪讟诪讗讛 讞讘讬专转讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion. From where did he learn this? From the fact that it teaches in a latter clause in the mishna: For one renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. Why do I need this phrase as well? It was already taught in the first clause that one hand renders the other hand impure with regard to sacrificial food. Rather, must one not conclude from this added phrase that it comes to include the rendering impure of the hand of another as well as his own other hand?

讜讗祝 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讞讚 讬讚讜 讜讗讞讚 讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

The Gemara observes: And Reish Lakish, too, retracted his own opinion in favor of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion. For Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Ami said that Reish Lakish said: The decree that one hand renders another impure applies whether it is his own hand or the hand of another, provided the second hand is touched by the same hand that came into contact with the impurity. Moreover, the impure hand affects the food it touches only to disqualify render it, but not to render it impure.

讜诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讟诪讗 讬讚讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 砖谞讬讜转 讜讬讚 诪讟诪讗 讞讘讬专转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讬诐 砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 砖谞讬 讘讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara comments: And this opinion, that an impure hand affects the sacrificial food only to disqualify it but not to render it impure, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Yadayim 3:2): Anything that disqualifies teruma by contact with it, i.e., anything that is impure at least to the second degree, renders the hands impure to the second degree. And furthermore, a hand that is impure to the second degree renders its counterpart, the other hand, impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. But the Rabbis say: Hands themselves are impure to the second degree, and that which is impure to the second degree cannot impart second-degree impurity to something else with regard to non-sacred food.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讗 砖诇讬砖讬 注讘讬讚

From the Rabbis鈥 response to Rabbi Yehoshua it is clear that the latter鈥檚 opinion is that the second hand is indeed rendered impure to the second degree, imparting third-degree impurity to sacrificial food that it touches. Moreover: What, is it not correct to infer from the Rabbis鈥 words that it is impurity to the second degree that the first hand does not impart to for the second hand by touching it, but impurity to the third degree it does impart to the second hand? The second hand would thus only disqualify the sacrificial food that it touches by imparting to it a fourth-degree impurity. Therefore, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehoshua are arguing about this very point: Does the second hand only disqualify sacrificial food by imparting to it fourth-degree impurity, or does it render the food impure with third-degree impurity?

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬 注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the Rabbis meant that the first hand does not impart impurity to the second hand to either the second or the third degree, for in their opinion one impure hand does not defile the other hand at all, in contradiction to the mishna, whereas the opinion expressed in the mishna would be following Rabbi Yehoshua.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬讚 谞讙讜讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讟诪讗 讘拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讬讚 诇驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讟诪讗

Rather, the issue of which degree of impurity is imparted to the second hand is like the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier: Even a dry hand that is impure renders its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, impure to the extent that the second hand will now render impure food that it touches. This is true with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The second hand is not rendered impure to such a severe extent. It can merely disqualify sacrificial food that it touches, by making it impure to the fourth degree, but not render it impure to the third degree.

讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞讙讜讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讜讻讬 讬砖 谞讙讜讘讛 诇拽讚砖 讜讛诇讗 讞讬讘转 讛拽讚砖 诪讻砖专转谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never been wetted and are thus not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands in the case of teruma, but not in the case of sacrificial food. It is taught in a baraita that there is a difficulty with this statement of the mishna: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus said: Now, is there such a possibility as dry food, i.e., food that is not susceptible to impurity, with regard to sacrificial food? Is it not so that the reverence accorded to sacrificial food itself renders it fit to contract impurity even if it has never been in contact with liquid at all? All sacrificial food is thus automatically susceptible to impurity, and whether it is dry, i.e., it has never been wetted, or not is irrelevant.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讗讜 砖转讞讘 讛讜讗 诇注爪诪讜 讘讻讜砖 讜讘讻专讻专 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讗讻讜诇 爪谞讜谉 讜讘爪诇 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 注诪讛谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this. And the case is not one of dry sacrificial food, as was first assumed. Rather, the mishna is dealing with a case in which, for example, his friend inserted sacrificial food or teruma into his mouth, or, alternatively, a case in which he inserted it into his own mouth by means of a spindle or whorl, which are wooden vessels without receptacles that cannot contract impurity. In either event the food arrives in his mouth without being rendered impure by his impure hands. And then, while the sacrificial food or teruma is still in his mouth, he wishes to put into his mouth and eat a non-sacred radish or onion along with them.

诇拽讚砖 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Non-sacred food is not rendered impure by being touched with impure hands, so it should not be problematic to put a radish or onion into one鈥檚 mouth with his hands. However, regarding sacrificial food the Sages enacted a decree against doing so, lest the person inadvertently touch the sacrificial food in his mouth with his impure hand. This decree, the mishna teaches, applies only to sacrificial food, but in a case in which he had teruma in his mouth the Sages did not enact a decree against it.

讛讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讜 讗住讬专讬 讗爪专讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛

搂 It was taught in the mishna: An acute mourner and one who is lacking atonement require immersion in order to eat sacrificial food, but this is not necessary for teruma. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this decree? Since until now it was prohibited for them to partake of sacrificial food and they therefore might not have guarded themselves properly from impurity, the Sages required them to undergo immersion before eating sacrificial food.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 讟讛专转 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讜讘砖注转 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

MISHNA: The previous mishna listed stringencies that apply to sacrificial food but not to teruma. However, there are also stringencies that apply to teruma over sacrificial food: In Judea all people, even people who are not generally meticulous in their observance of the halakhot of ritual purity [amei ha鈥檃retz], are trusted with regard to the purity of consecrated wine and oil throughout all the days of the year. And during the period of the winepress and olive press, when grapes and olives are pressed and made into wine and oil, respectively, they are trusted even with regard to the purity of teruma, as all people, including amei ha鈥檃retz, purify their vessels for this season.

注讘专讜 讛讙讬转讜转 讜讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讘诇谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞讛 诇讙转 讛讘讗讛 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛驻专砖转讬 诇转讜讻讛 专讘讬注讬转 拽讚砖 谞讗诪谉

But once the periods of the winepress and olive press have passed, if amei ha鈥檃retz brought to him, i.e., to a priest who is meticulous concerning the halakhot of ritual purity [岣ver], a barrel of teruma wine, he may not accept it from them, as amei ha鈥檃retz are not trusted with regard to matters of ritual purity during the rest of the year. But the giver may leave it over for the following winepress season, in the following year, at which point the 岣ver priest may accept it from him, although it was prohibited for him to accept the same barrel beforehand. And if the giver said to the priest: I separated and placed into this barrel of teruma a quarterlog of sacrificial wine or oil, he is trusted with regard to the entire contents of the barrel. Since an am ha鈥檃retz is trusted with regard to the purity of sacrificial food, he is also believed with regard to teruma that is mingled with the sacrificial food.

讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉

With regard to jugs of wine and jugs of oil

Scroll To Top